an evaluation of 2d-image analysis techniques for ...vecnudde/phd/appendix... · evaluation of...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
1
An evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques for measuring soil micro-porosity
V. MARCELINOa, V. CNUDDEa, S. VANSTEELANDTb & F. CARÒc
aDepartment of Geology and Soil Science, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281/S8, B-9000 Ghent,
Belgium, bDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Ghent University, Krijgslaan
281/S9, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, cDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università degli Studi di Pavia,
Strada Ferrata, 1-27100 Pavia, Italia
Correspondance: V. Marcelino, Email: [email protected]
Summary
Manual, semi-automatic and automatic 2D-image analysis procedures were used to
perform and compare soil porosity measurements on three sets of images of the same
fields. The first and second image sets were obtained, using a fluorescence
microscope, on the polished surfaces of soil blocks impregnated with a fluorescent
resin and on the thin sections made from them, respectively. A scanning electron
microscope equipped with a back-scattered electron detector was used to acquire the
third set of images on the thin sections.
In the manual image analysis procedure, image segmentation was based on the best
visual impression and individually carried out for each image with the help of the
public domain UTHSCSA Image Tool software. For the semi-automatic method, the
software µCTanalySIS was used; the images were segmented by double hysteresis,
after interactive selection of the thresholding values for each set of images. Automatic
thresholding of the pore network based on an analysis of the image intensity
histogram was performed using the commercial image analysis software Image-Pro®
Plus.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
2
Average porosity measurements were compared between image types and image
analysis methods using marginal regression models for continuous outcomes. The
mean area covered by the pores was significantly different depending on the type of
image (P <0.0001) and the method of image analysis (P <0.0001).
These results stress the need for a standardisation of image analysis protocols and
warn for the dangers of comparing soil porosity measurements performed on different
type of images.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
3
Introduction
The quantification of soil porosity in thin sections was formerly done by manual
methods such as point counting but this has successfully been replaced by less tedious
and more accurate digital image analysis techniques.
The first image analysis systems were available in the early 1970's and have since
then become increasingly accessible to soil scientists. Currently, low-cost software
based image analysis systems make automated analysis of soil pore space very easy
and attractive. Significant contributions to the quantification and characterisation of
soil pores by 2D image analysis procedures are those by Jongerius et al. (1972),
Ismail (1975), Murphy et al. (1977), Bullock and Murphy (1980), Ringrose-Voase &
Bullock (1984), Ringrose-Voase (1987, 1990, 1991), Moran et al. (1989), McBratney
& Moran (1992), Thompson et al. (1992), Terribile & Fitzpatrick (1992), Protz et al.
(1992), Protz & Van den Bygaart (1998).
Two-dimens ional images of the soil pore space are easily obtained when polished
faces of undisturbed soil blocks, previously impregnated with a resin containing a
fluorescent dye, or thin sections cut from them, are illuminated with UV-light or
viewed with a fluorescence microscope (Geyger & Beckman, 1967; Murphy et al.,
1977; Ringrose-Voase, 1984; Bouabib et al., 1992). Pore space is also readily
identifiable on finely polished thin sections viewed with a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) in backscattered mode (Bisdom & Thiel, 1981).
These sample preparation/image acquisition methods have been widely used to obtain
soil pore images at a variety of scales and using only one illumination source.
However, no information exists on the extent to which images obtained with UV
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
4
reflected light in polished blocks, with UV reflected light in thin sections and
backscattered electron images produce comparable porosity measurements.
On the other hand, different techniques exist to analyse 2-D images based on different
theories and algorithms and various software packages, from free public domain to
powerful and expensive ones. Segmentation is one of the most critical steps in the
process of reducing images to information and can be done on the basis of grey-level,
colour separation, textural differences or other meaningful criteria. Since pores in
fluorescent and backscattered electron images have an average intensity different
from the average background intensity, a grey- level threshold operation seems
appropriate to segment the grey-scale image into a two-phase black and white image.
Thresholds in manual and semi-automatic methods are interactively set by the
operator so that the resulting image is visually satisfying. However, since the human
eye is poor in intensity discrimination, the result is not always consistent from one
operator to another or even for a same person over a period of time. Other methods
use the image intensity histogram to automatically adjust threshold settings producing
better reproducible results. In addition, depending on their quality, images are
regularly subjected to some filtering before segmentation and correction procedures
are often applied to segmented images (Bovik et al., 2001; Russ, 2002).
The objective of this study was to compare soil porosity measurements between (1)
three widely used sample preparation/image acquisition procedures and (2) three 2D-
image analysis methods with different levels of manual intervention.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
5
Materials and Methods
Sample preparation and image acquisition
Two undisturbed soil samples of the same soil were impregnated with a polyester
resin mixed with a fluorescent dye (Uvitex). After complete drying, one face of each
impregnated block was finely polished. On each polished face 10 randomly chosen
fields were marked. They were viewed with UV incident light at a magnification
suited for the measurement of the area occupied by pores (fluorescent zones) with
Ø>20 µm and photographed with a digital camera. Thin sections, 30 µm thick, were
cut from the polished blocks and images of the same fields, at the same magnification
and in UV incident light, were taken. The same thin sections were carbon coated and
backscattered electron images (BSE-images) of the same fields at the same
magnification were obtained with a SEM (JEOL JSM 5900). In total 30 images
(3/field), each with a pixel resolution of 1.7 µm, were taken. Each image represents an
area of 2.25 mm².
Manual thresholding
Image analysis and processing was done using the public domain software UTHSCSA
Image-Tool v.2 on 256 grey level images. No prior smoothing or shape correction
operations were carried out on the images. The pore space is segmented from the rest
of the image by manual thresholding based on the best visual impression. On the
histogram representing the distribution of grey level intensities within the image, the
grey level range that corresponds to the pore space is selected using lower and upper
sliders. During runtime pixels with values within this range are highlighted thus
allowing the user to identify the range that best represents the pore space. Once the
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
6
range is selected the software creates a binary image in which objects (pores) are
white and background black. Both the area covered by all pores detected and the area
covered by pores with Ø>20 µm was automatically determined and recorded. Since
the best threshold must be individually found for each image, this method is rather
time-consuming.
Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility
To assess the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility manual thresholding was
blindly performed on all images with the same software by two independent observers
and blindly repeated by one of the observers after a one-month period. The first set of
results obtained by the more experienced observer was used for method comparisons
in further analyses.
Semi-automatic thresholding
The software “µCTanalySIS” (Cnudde & Jacobs, 2004; Cnudde et al., 2004),
originally developed to analyse 3D images, is based on well-known basic 2D
principles, and has been used for both 2D (Steppe et al., 2004) and 3D image analysis.
Two types of segmentation techniques are possible with this software: region growing
and hysteresis. Segmentation by hysteresis was selected for this study because it has
the advantage of avoiding overflow. This method uses a "strong" and a "weak"
thresholding value, which are interactively selected for each type of images. Strong
thresholding is performed, to filter the noise and to select areas that definitely belong
to the etched boundaries of the pores, even if they do not completely represent these
boundaries. Weak thresholding completely delineates the boundaries of the pores, but
also includes some noise. Hence, the resulting segmented image combines
information of both weak and strong thresholding and represents the pores with their
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
7
corresponding boundaries. No prior smoothing or shape correction operations were
carried out on the images. After segmentation, the pores were labeled by the software
and information about their area was automatically recorded.
Automatic thresholding
The commercial software Image-Pro® Plus used provides classical image processing
and analysis tools and had to be adapted to the specificities of this study (Carò & Di
Giulio, 2004). Depending on the type of image, two different sequences of algorithms
were used to process the source image: the black pores in BSE-images were enhanced
by increasing the pixel intensity of the sample through an iterative mathematical
addition of the same image and the fluorescent images were processed through
automatic histogram equalisation (Media Cybernetics, 1999). The same automatic
iterative thresholding method was then used to identify the pore fraction on the
processed images. The automatic thresholding assumes that the grey level histogram
is the sum of two normal intensity distributions: foreground pixels and background
pixels. This model finds the point where the two distributions intersect, which may
not be exactly where the two distributions separate. For each grey level (t) in the
histogram h(t), the algorithm calculates the variance of the two portions of the
histogram lying on each side of t, v1(t) and v2(t). The model selects the grey level i.e.
the threshold that minimises the sum of the two normalised variances (Media
Cybernetics, 1999). This method is usually referred to as the Otsu method (Otsu,
1979). Once the images are thresholded, the discrete elements of each image are
labelled and spatial measurements recorded.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
8
Statistical analysis
Both the area covered by all pores detected (“all pores”) and the area covered by
pores with Ø>20 µm (“large pores”) were measured on ten randomly chosen fields
using three methods of sample preparation/image acquisition (image types) and three
image analysis methods, resulting in a total of 18 porosity measurements per field.
Average porosity measurements were compared between image types, image analysis
methods and porosity ranges, using marginal regression models for continuous
outcomes. Models were fitted using generalised estimating equations with
exchangeable working correlation to account for the correlation between porosity
measurements obtained on the same soil samples. The statistical significance in the
models was calculated using Wald tests.
Bland & Altman plots (Bland & Altman, 1986) (see Figure 3) were used to illustrate
measurement bias (estimated by the mean difference in porosity measurement
between methods or images) and lack of agreement (estimated by the variability of
differences in porosity measurement between methods or images). These plot the
difference in measurements in function of their average. In those plots, the solid line
quantifies measurement bias (zero indicating no bias) and the dashed lines delineate
an estimated interval within which 95% of all measurement differences between 2
methods or images can be expected (increasing distance between the dashed lines
being suggestive of increasing lack of agreement).
All analyses were performed with SAS v9.1 (proc mixed) and R v.2.0.0.
The inter-observer and the intra-observer reproducibility were determined by
coefficients of reproducibility (Bland & Altman, 1986). Inter- or intra-observer
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
9
differences that are more extreme than these coefficients can be expected with 5%
chance.
Results and discussion
Not only the area percentage of all pores detected but also the area percentage of
pores with diameter larger than 20 µm was determined on each binary image, because
the fluorescent images at the magnification used do not produce reliable
measurements for small pores. To study them, complementary images would have to
be taken with a stronger objective. On the contrary, in backscattered electron images
(BSE-images) the grey level intensity is proportional to the average atomic number of
a phase and pores, even small ones, are thus clearly detectable.
Figure 1 shows a representative set of images of the same field - the first two are
fluorescent images obtained from the polished block and the thin section and the third
one is an inverted back scattered electron image - with the corresponding grey-level
histograms. The histogram is bimodal for the BSE-images but not for the fluorescent
images. This means that finding an appropriate thresholding value is easier on the
BSE-images than on the fluorescent images. In addition, this figure clearly shows that
the amount of small pores is much larger in the BSE-images than in the other ones.
The mean porosity values for each studied field and their corresponding standard
deviations are summarised in Figure 2. The results of the statistical analysis of the
porosity data, including both “all pores” detected and “large pores” (? >20 µm) only,
are compiled in Tables 1 and 2 and in Figure 3. The results of the overall comparison
of 'all pores' and 'large pores' are presented in Table 3.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
10
The differences between the two soil samples used are not statistically significant
(P=0.66). The mean area covered by the pores (all/large) is significantly different
depending on the type of image (P<0.0001) and the method of image analysis
(P<0.0001) (Table 1).
Table 1 also shows that the average porosity measurements after automatic
thresholding are significantly and systematically larger than when manual and semi-
automatic thresholding is used (P<0.0001). This trend is very clear in the fluorescent
images. It can be explained by the fact that no image enhancement was performed
prior to the semi-automatic and the manual thresholding, while some image pre-
processing was required by the automatic segmentation method. The histogram
equalisation applied to the fluorescent block and thin section images have caused the
enlargement of some pores leading to overestimation of the pore space. BSE-images
did not require sensible enhancing and were only subjected to a simple mathematical
additive operation of the original image with itself that does no t produce any
enlargement of the pore space.
Direct comparison of results seems thus to be meaningful only if the same image
enhancement and segmentation procedures are used. This is in line with the
observations by Thompson et al. (1992) and stresses the need for a standardisation of
image analysis protocols.
On the other hand, average porosity values determined on BSE-images are
systematically much larger than those obtained on fluorescent images, regardless of
the image analysis procedure used (Table 1) (P<0.0001). These differences are
slightly, although significantly more important if all pores are considered (Table 2).
This suggests that porosity in fluorescent images is generally underestimated.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
11
In general, if only “large pores” are considered, the differences among image types
are significantly smaller but the differences among image analysis methods are
significantly larger than if “all pores” are included (Table 2). The image
acquisition/sample preparation method affects the quality of the image, mostly the
amount of small pores detected. Hence, when only “large pores” are considered the
differences among images become less important and the differences among the
image analysis methods are enhanced.
As summarised in Table 3 the average differences in porosity between "all pores" and
"large pores" are all statistically significant (P<0.0001). However the differences
between BSE-images of “all pores” and “large pores” are much larger than between
block images and thin section images. This, as mentioned above, is associated with
the larger detail of BSE-images that reflect composition rather than optical properties.
The spreading of the points in the Bland & Altman plots (Bland & Altman, 1986) in
Figure 3 indicates that porosity measurements on thin sections and polished blocks are
more comparable, apart from an average difference, than porosity measurements
obtained from BSE-images and fluorescent images (Figure 3, plot A). Likewise,
porosity results agree best between semi-automatic and manual methods, apart from
an average difference, and less so in comparison with the automatic method (Figure 3,
plot D). This is again explained by the image enhancement used prior to the automatic
segmentation but not before manual and semi-automatic segmentation. Finally, note
that the differences between automatic and the other methods become less important
in images with higher porosity (Figure 3, plot E & F). In contrast, there is some
evidence (Figure 3, plots A & B) that the differences between blocks and the other
images become more important in images with higher porosity. This could suggest
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
12
that extra care has to be taken when comparing porosity measurements of compact
materials.
For the manual thresholding, the coefficient of inter-observer reproducibility was 6.4
and the coefficient of intra-observer reproducibility was 2.0. This indicates that the
porosity results obtained by the same observer are better reproducible than those by
different observers are. Porosity measurements for comparative studies are therefore
best carried out by the same observer. Automatic methods give better reproducible
results, even though they imply less control over the thresholding process.
Conclusion
The quality of the image, determined by the image acquisition/sample preparation
method used, significantly affects average porosity measurements. Fluorescent images
compared with BSE-images clearly underestimate porosity. BSE-images provide
much more detail and are easier to threshold, due to their nature and bimodal grey
level histogram. Porosity measurements carried out on images acquired using
different methods cannot be compared.
On the other hand, since different interventions and methods used to increase image
quality and segment images also significantly affect porosity results, these can only be
compared if the images are subjected to the same treatment.
Moreover, in the particular case of manual thresholding, porosity results obtained by
the same observer are better reproducible than those from different observers.
Porosity measurements for comparative studies are therefore best carried out by the
same observer.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
13
In summary, the results of this study stress the need for a standardisation of image
analysis methods and protocols used for direct quantification of soil pores and warn
for the dangers of comparing soil porosity measurements carried out on different
types of images.
Acknowledgements
This study is partly supported by the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by
Science and Technology in Flanders, Belgium through a PhD grant for Veerle
Cnudde. We thank Dr. F. G. Monteiro (ISA, Lisboa) for his help with the
reproducibility data.
References
Bisdom, E.B.A. & Thiel, F. 1981. Backscattered electron scanning images of
porosities in thin sections of soils, weathered rocks and oil-gas reservoir rocks using
SEM-EDXRA. In: Sub-microscopy of Soils and Weathered Rocks (ed. E.B.A.
Bisdom), pp.191-206. Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Bland, J.M. & Altman, D.G. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement
between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i, 307-310.
Bouabid, R., Nater, E.A. & Barak, P. 1992. Measurement of pore size distribution in a
lamellar Bt horizon using epifluorescence microscopy and image analysis. Geoderma,
53, 309–328.
Bovik, A.C., Aggarwal, S.J., Merchant, F., Kim, N.H. & Diller, K.R. 2001. Automatic
area and volume measurements from digital biomedical images. In: Image Analysis.
Methods and Applications (ed. D-P. Häder), pp. 23-64. CRC Press.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
14
Bullock, P. & Murphy, C.P. 1980. Towards the quantification of soil structure.
Journal of Microscopy, 120, 317–328.
Carò, F. & Di Giulio, A. 2004. Reliability of textural analysis of ancient plasters and
mortars through automated image analysis. Materials Characterization, 53, 243-257.
Cnudde, V. & Jacobs, P. 2004. Preliminary results of X-ray micro-tomography
applied in conservation and restoration of natural building stones. X-ray CT for
geomaterials, soils, concrete, rocks. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on
X-ray CT for Geomaterials, GeoX2003, 6-7 November 2003 (ed. Otani & Obara), pp.
363-371. Kumamoto, Japan .
Cnudde, V., Cnudde, J.P., Dupuis, C. & Jacobs, P.J.S. 2004. X-ray micro-CT used for
the localization of water repellents and consolidants inside natural building stones.
Materials Characterization, 53, 259-271.
Geyger, E & Beckmann, W. 1967. Apparate und methoden der
mikromorphometrishen strukturanalyse des bodens. In: Die Mikromorphometrishen
Bodenanalyse (ed. W.L. Kubiena), pp. 36-57. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart.
Ismail, S. N. A. 1975. Micromorphometric soil porosity characteristics by means of
electro-optical image analysis (Quantimet 720). Soil Survey Papers No. 9.
Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Jongerius, A., Schoonderbeek, D., Jager, A. & Kowalinski, T. 1972. Electro-optical
soil porosity investigation by means of Quantiment-B equipment. Geoderma, 7, 177–
198.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
15
McBratney, A.B., Moran, C.J., Stewart, J.B., Cattle, S.R. & Koppi, A.J. 1992.
Modifications to a method of rapid assessment of soil macropore structure by image
analysis. Geoderma, 53, 255–274.
Media Cybernetics, 1999. Image-Pro® Plus Reference Guide for WindowsTM. Media
Cybernetics, L.P., Silver Spring.
Moran, C.J., McBratney, A.B. & Koppi, A.J. 1989. A rapid method for analysis of
soil macro-pore structure: I. Specimen preparation and digital binary image
production. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 53, 921–928.
Murphy, C.P., Bullock, P. & Turner, R.H. 1977a. The measurement and
characterization of voids in soil thin sections by image analysis. Part I. Principles and
techniques. Journal of Soil Science, 28, 498-508.
Otsu, N. 1979. A threshold selection method from gray- level histograms. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9(1), 62-66.
Protz, R., Sweeney, S.J. & Fox, C.A. 1992. An application of spectral image analysis
to soil micromorphology: 1. Methods of analysis. Geoderma, 53, 373–385.
Protz, R. & Van den Bygaart, A.J. 1998. Towards systematic image analysis in the
study of soil micromorphology. Sciences of Soils, 3, 4.
Ringrose-Voase, A.J. 1987. A scheme for the quantitative description of soil
macrostructure by image analysis. Journal of Soil Science. 38, 343–356.
Ringrose-Voase, A.J. 1990. One dimensional image analysis of soil structure: I.
Principles. Journal of Soil Science 41, 499–512.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
16
Ringrose-Voase, A.J. 1991. Micromorphology of soil structure: description,
quantification and application. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 29, 777–813.
Ringrose-Voase, A.J. & Bullock, P. 1984. The automatic recognition and
measurement of soil pore types by image analysis and computer programs. Journal of
Soil Science, 35, 673–684.
Russ, J.C. 2002 The image processing handbook. 4th ed., CRC Press .
Steppe, K., Cnudde, V., Girard C., Lemeur, R., Cnudde, J.P. & Jacobs, P. 2004. Use of
X-ray computed microtomography for non- invasive determination of wood
anatomical characteristics. Journal of Structural Biology, 148(1), 11-21.
Terribile, F. & FitzPatrick, E.A. 1992. The application of multilayer digital image
processing techniques to the description of soil thin sections. Geoderma 55, 159–174.
Thompson, M.L., Piyush, S., Coraket, S. & Straszheim, W.E. 1992. Cautionary notes
for the automated analysis of soil pore-space images. Geoderma, 53, 399–415.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
17
Figure Captions
Figure 1 Mean porosity of each studied field and corresponding standard deviation
(L1 to L10: only large pores are included; A1 to A10: all pores are included).
Figure 2 Set of images of the same field with the corresponding grey-level
histograms.
Figure 3 Bland & Altman plots. Top: porosity difference vs. average porosity of the
different types of images (Sections, Blocks and BSE) analysed by Manual (?), Semi-
automatic (? ) or Automatic (? ) methods. Bottom: porosity difference vs. average
porosity obtained with the different image analysis methods (Manual, Semi-automatic
and Automatic) on Blocks (?), Sections (? ) or BSE (? ) images.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
18
Table 1 Comparison of methods by image and comparison of images by method
Estimate 95% CI P
Method <0.0001
Manual – Automatic -4.5 -5.6;-3.3 <0.0001
Block -4.3 -5.7;-2.9
Section -6.4 -7.8;-5.0 <0.0001 a
BSE -2.7 -4.3;-1.2
Semi-automatic – Automatic -3.3 -4.2;-2.5 <0.0001
Block -4.2 -5.4;-3.0
Section -5.5 -6.5;-4.6 <0.0001 a
BSE -0.3 -1.5; 0.9
Manual – Semi-automatic -1.1 -1.6;-0.7 <0.0001
Block -0.1 -0.5;0.3
Section -0.8 -1.5;-0.2 <0.0001 a
BSE -2.4 -3.2;-1.7
Image <0.0001
Block – BSE -9.6 -12.0;-7.2 <0.0001
Manual -9.3 -12.1;-6.6
Semi-automatic -11.7 -14.3;-9.0 <0.0001 b
Automatic -7.8 -9.7;-5.8
Section – BSE -6.7 -9.2;-4.3 <0.0001
Manual -7.4 -10.1;-4.7
Semi-automatic -9.0 -11.8;-6.2 <0.0001 b
Automatic -3.7 -5.9;-1.6
Block – Section -2.9 -4.3;-1.5 <0.0001
Manual -2.0 -3.7;-0.2
Semi-automatic -2.7 -4.1;-1.3 0.0253 b
Automatic -4.0 -5.5;-2.6 a Test for heterogeneity in method comparison between images. b Test for heterogeneity in image comparison between methods.
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
19
Table 2 Comparison of methods and images by pore size range
Estimate 95% CI P
Method <0.0001
Manual – Automatic -4.5 -5.6;-3.3 <0.0001
Large pores -4.6 -5.8;-3.5
All pores -4.3 -5.5;-3.1 0.0010 a
Semi-automatic – Automatic -3.3 -4.2;-2.5 <0.0001
Large pores -3.8 -4.8;-2.9
All pores -2.8 -3.6;-2.1 <0.0001 a
Manual – Semi-automatic -1.1 -1.6;-0.7 <0.0001
Large pores -0.8 -1.3;-0.3
All pores -1.5 -2.0;-0.9 0.0068 a
Image <0.0001
Block – BSE -9.6 -12.0;-7.2 <0.0001
Large pores -8.6 -11.1;-6.0
All pores -10.6 -13.1;-8.2 0.0021 b
Section – BSE -6.7 -9.2;-4.3 <0.0001
Large pores -6.0 -8.4;-3.6
All pores -7.4 -10.0;-4.8 0.0202 b
Block – Section -2.9 -4.3;-1.5 <0.0001
Large pores -2.6 -3.9;-1.2
All pores -3.2 -4.7;-1.8 0.0016 b
a Test for heterogeneity in method comparison between pore size ranges b Test for heterogeneity in image comparison between pore size ranges
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
20
Table 3 Overall comparison of "Large pores" and "All pores" by method and by
image
Estimate 95% CI P
Large pores – All pores -1.7 -2.2;-1.3 <0.0001
Manual -1.6 -2.1;-1.1
Semi-automatic -2.3 -2.9;-1.6 <0.0001 a
Automatic -1.3 -1.6;-1.0
Block -0.8 -1.1;-0.5
Section -1.5 -1.8;-1.1 <0.0001 a
BSE -2.9 -4.1;-1.7 a Test for heterogeneity in comparison "Large pores" and "All pores" between methods or images
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
21
Polished block Thin section BSE - image (inverted)
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
22
field
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
poro
sity
%
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Evaluation of 2D-image analysis techniques
23
10 15 20 25 30 35
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
15 20 25 30 35
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
15 25 35
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
10 20 30 40
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
15 25 35
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
15 25 35
-10
-50
510
1520
Average
Diff
eren
ce
Sections vs. Blocks BSE vs. Blocks BSE vs. Sections
Semi-automatic vs. Manual Automatic vs. Manual Automatic vs. Semi-automatic